A note on that conflict where I had to choose between escalating and giving: I was alone. It seems to me that Dogs functions best when the Dogs are forced to go into conflicts alone, and that is something that runs counter to my GMing instincts, especially since a Dogs conflict can mean the other two players aren't as involved for what could be a longish time. But does that mesh with other people's experiences? Are individual conflicts more intense in terms of "Is this worth getting violent over?" I suspect so. If so, then I just need to figure out what would motivate the Dogs to split up. I suppose a town where too much is happening to just focus on on area would do the trick. Hmm.

two things:

1/ everyone around the table can enjoy a good dramatic conflict, even if their character isn't involved

the only time I've seen this be a problem is over IRC, because it's really slow

if people aren't interested in each other's conflicts, you might want to emphasize collaborative character creation

2/ splitting the Dogs up is one way to go

I prefer to give them relations to people in town that might put them on opposing sides of conflicts

Pretty much, yeah. That's why just talking isn't mind control. You have to have something to say that hits your opponent like a punch in the face. This is hard to do! If it was easy, the Dogs wouldn't need their guns, and would just travel around holding town meetings.

Quote

What is the nature of an unignorable verbal raise?

Something that hurts to hear. Something that demands a response. Something the opponent desperately wants to stay unsaid. It should be personal, pointed, backed up with he authority of the King of Life, or family ties, or the dirty, ugly secrets that no one wants to know.

You know them when you hear them. They make everyone go "Oh, man."

"I tell him to come outside." Yawn. Whatever.

"We know what you've been doing, Jeremiah. You can't hide your shame anymore. Come out here and be judged!" Much better. A man of the faith can't just ignore that. Of course, if he blocks that, you'll have to take it up a notch if you want to keep it just talking. Say that you're going to tell everyone what he's done. Or say you can keep it quiet if he comes out. Like that.

It's not that it's impossible to make talking raises, just that it's not simple. Conversations, requests, simple threats... not good enough. You have to push someone's buttons. You have to be manipulative, aggressive, inappropriate, insightful. You have to say stuff that just might make someone cry, scream, punch you, or shoot you as a response.

At least, that's how we do it. Each group has to find their own standard; there's no one true way. If you're not happy with the standard for talking raises now, talk it over.

That is very useful advice. It gets to the heart of my problem: my Dogs escalate when they have no dice left, not when they have no ideas on verbal raises left. If we all agree to be harder on verbal raises, it would make them more powerful and would also make Dogs who run out of ideas have to escalate or give. I like that.

Can't _everything_ verbal be ignored? What is the nature of an unignorable verbal raise?

Lots of stuff. Blasphemy's a good one. Blasphemy in public with the whole town watching you. That kind of talk challenges everything you are as a dog and can threaten the salvation of every man, woman and child who hears it. You going to let that kind of talk stand?

Also, someone threatening your relationships or pushes buttons you have in your traits, like "Doubts his faith" or "Devoted to his mother" or "I will save my brother's soul". Start insulting his mother, calling his beliefs into question, or tempting his brother and see what happens.

The word "no" in response to a Dog's order. Are they just going to let everyone ignore them? What are the repercussions of disobeying a Dog? Do they shoot you?

Brother Isaac, you are forbidden to speak to Sister Constance ever again!I love her and I will marry her and nothing you can say will stop me!Boom! (really?)(or do you just ignore them?)Oh, okay. Talk to her if you want to then.

I'm with noclue on this one. I used to be incredibly active in this forum, and the way you describe it has basically never been the rule. I'm sure it would have come up if we'd all been doing it wrong.

You only get the dice when you choose to escalate. Escalating the conflict is, frankly, meaningless words, no offense to Vincent. It doesn't mean everyone rolls escalation dice, nor does it mean the fallout level goes up for the conflict, so therefore, it has no mechanical effect. Sure, when someone escalates the tension level goes up, but refusing to escalate can raise the tension as well.

Hm. But on further reading through that thread, he is pretty explicit. I don't know that he's necessarily talking about DitV as well, though. Nothing I read indicates to me that the rule applies to both games.

And on a final note, even if I'm wrong about this, I dislike that. By someone else escalating and giving you dice, it allows you to dodge the question of whether or not to escalate, and weakens the moral decision making process that makes DitV conflicts so powerful.

Dog: I'm gonna talk him down. GM: Well, he shoots at you!Dog: Cool, I get more dice to use to talk him down! Glad I don't have to worry about escalating to shooting to get those extra dice. Hard decision avoided!

When you ESCALATE, you get to roll Stat dice for the new arena....Now I don't have the dice to See your Raise. If I don't want to Give, I have to Escalate to match. Will I? Yes!

First rule quote (probably) isn't using a plural pronoun, when it would have been easy to do so: "When someone ESCALATES, everyone gets to roll Stat dice for the new arena."

But the second-person, plural pronoun in English is the same as the singular; perhaps the "you" is "the players?" Nope, the second rule quote makes it pretty clear that the GM hasn't escalated yet, considers it (for a split second), then does so.

you have the option of not rolling the extra dice if you prefer not to do so, to make a point

but the default is: when someone escalates, everyone gets extra dice

I got this wrong at first too

I see he's said that in a previous thread http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=24389.msg237976#msg237976 as well. It may be too fine a point, but it appears that you do still have to do "something" appropriate to the new arena to get the dice. You have the option of not reacting appropriately (like ducking for cover or shooting back in a gunfight) in order to not roll in extra dice. I admit that's not functionally different to what you've stated above, but you wouldn't just get the dice unless your See was a reaction to the gunplay (I wonder if shouting "Don't shoot!" qualifies).

I see he's said that in a previous thread http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=24389.msg237976#msg237976 as well. It may be too fine a point, but it appears that you do still have to do "something" appropriate to the new arena to get the dice. You have the option of not reacting appropriately (like ducking for cover or shooting back in a gunfight) in order to not roll in extra dice. I admit that's not functionally different to what you've stated above, but you wouldn't just get the dice unless your See was a reaction to the gunplay (I wonder if shouting "Don't shoot!" qualifies).

naturally, your see always has to be relevant to the on-going narration

but I think "something appropriate to the new arena" might perhaps be misleading

the way I see it, you can see or raise with anything that's within the arenas that have been used so far (assuming you don't yourself escalate to a whole new arena)

The "if you dodge a gunshot, that means you're gunfighting" rule is mechanically crucial. Your players can ignore it if they have a point to prove, but as GM you can't deny it to them.

Without it - that is, if you can escalate only on your raise - I can put you out of the conflict on my raise without ever giving you the chance to escalate. This would undercut the spirit of the rules far worse than "if you dodge a gunshot, that means you're gunfighting" does.

The thing to do is to be serious about talking during a gunfight. If someone's shooting at you and you want to stay in but you don't want to shoot back, you better say something they can't ignore. Something that the gunfire can't possibly drown out.

The "if you dodge a gunshot, that means you're gunfighting" rule is mechanically crucial. Your players can ignore it if they have a point to prove, but as GM you can't deny it to them.

Without it - that is, if you can escalate only on your raise - I can put you out of the conflict on my raise without ever giving you the chance to escalate. This would undercut the spirit of the rules far worse than "if you dodge a gunshot, that means you're gunfighting" does.

Wouldn't saying "I draw my gun and take cover" or something like this (adding "i draw my gun" or something that point to the fact that you are going to return fire on your turn) take care of this, without taking away the chance to make a point dodging bullets without escalating to gunfight for people who want that?

I don't know, maybe we drifted the rules a little in our games, because we never had any problem in getting the escalation dice with the narration of the "see", if we wanted them, so we didn't have any problem in saying "you get the escalation dice only when you escalate in turn"

Couldn't passing on free escalation dice or delaying getting the dice until one actively escalates something like a "soft give"? Putting out the dice as early as possible may be drawing a conflict out for too much, since some people feel obligated to fight until the last die.

On the other hand, if I don't want my dog to go shootin' for a conflict, I should probably just give, cut my losses and follow-up as soon as I deem it worthwhile.